Western Digital is releasing Dual-Actuator HDD with performance close to SSDs

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So you chose the lowest return rate SSD listed and then chose the highest return rate HDD that the articles mentioned.  You can tell how bad of a sample size they have is as well, since they have Corsair SSD at 1.67% prior and Seagate HDD at 0.8% prior.

I chose Samsung because those are the SSDs I recommend the most.

I chose WD because this thread is about them.

 

It's far more logical to compare those vs comparing enterprise hard drives like most from HSGT vs a brand like Kingston which primarily made budget drives.

 

I could have chosen different brands and it would have changed the scales a bit, but I picked those brands for a reason other than "let's cherry pick". I picked the brands that made the most sense to compare, and even if I had picked different brands the conclusion would have been more or less the same anyway. The worst SSD brand from that report had a failure rate of 0,44%. The best HDD brand (HGST) had a failure rate of 0,82. That's almost twice as many returns within the first year. Twice as likely to be dead within a year. And remember, that's comparing bottom of the barrel SSDs vs possibly enterprise grade HDDs.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You can tell how bad of a sample size they have is as well, since they have Corsair SSD at 1.67% prior and Seagate HDD at 0.8% prior.

Maybe read the article instead of making assumptions?

Anything below 100 sales were ignored.

If some particular SKU had below 200 in sales they marked it in italics, for example WD Purple and the Seagate Enterprise NAS HDD 6TB.

No brand with less than 500 sales were included in the overall reliability score.

 

I wouldn't say a sample size of over 5000 SSDs and over 5000 HDDs is "a bad sample size" (and that's based on minimums to qualify for the lists). I mean, what more can you expect? 

 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So yea, your numbers are highly cherry-picked; at least google translate says it's return rate not failure rate.  If you even clicked on the conclusion page you would have seen that during the periods P3 - P9 SSD's were quite a bit higher return rates.

Why do you think people return things? It's fairly safe to say it's because something broke or was broken.

And if the argument is that "well sometimes people buy the wrong thing or regret their purchase" then that should be applied to all brands and making it fairly equal.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You claim to hate it when people bring up BackBlaze, but the reality is they have at least numbers that you can check against (smart data, etc). 

The issue is that their numbers are not at all representative of what happens at consumer workloads. We have been over this. BackBlaze is not just "worse case scenario stress test". Their workload is fundamentally different which has no resemblance of what a drive will do in a consumer computer.

Or as leadeater said in the old thread:  

On 10/3/2021 at 11:41 AM, leadeater said:

That's like testing engine reliability for typical sedans by running them at 6000 RPM all day every day then saying the failure rate is high. Not too sure how many people drive around 24/7 and also in 1st gear.

 

Or if you want different analogies, using BackBlaze to draw conclusions about reliability for consumer workloads is like testing the reliability of AMD and Nvidia GPUs by using them as a hammer. It tells you absolutely nothing about how reliable they will be for a consumer when used for their intended purposes.

Or like testing two frying pans by putting them inside a blast furnace and counting how long it takes before they melt. The number you get has no relation to how good they will be for a home cook. You're measuring how well they hold up in a scenario that is completely different to what home users will put them through. It's not "the same but worse case so you get results faster". It's "completely different so you get different results".

I can't believe BackBlaze have been publishing their misleading reports for so many years and people still haven't learned why they are bad and can't be used to measure reliability for home usage. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Beerzerker said:

Experiencing a failure is still a failure, making them one in the same.

No it really doesn't. You have done Mathematics in school correct?

 

What is the probability of a failure if:

• You have 1 SSDs with failure rate of 0.08%
• You have 2 SSDs with a failure rate of 0.08%
• You have 1 HDD with a failure rate of 0.16%

If you know how to calculate probability then you know they are not one in the same. We are talking the likelihood of having something fail, you are the one that wanted to bring in raw total numbers so I'm pointing out the flaw in that argument. Don't try and call them one in the same when the are not.

 

Unless you have hundreds and hundreds of SSDs and only 1 HDD then does it really matter that the probability of an SSD failure is higher for a regular consumer with only 1 or a few of each, an SSD and/or HDD?

 

1 hour ago, Beerzerker said:

Having more does not make any one example more at risk to fail, it's the probrability of having a failure in the first place that goes up since each drive is another chance of a failure occuring, which was one of my points so we agree here.

Exactly so your point you made about total failures and total HDDs in existence, and them getting old was precisely pointless like I said.

 

Unless you are arguing that induvial consumers have so many HDDs or SSDs that this is actually going to matter then the only thing that matters is the probability of a product itself failing when considering to buy an SSD or HDD for reliability. If then end goal is to buy something reliable then that is what you look at, not the hundreds of thousands of HDDs failing all the time because what exactly does that tell you? Nothing....

 

Totals simply don't matter here. You seem to understand this but brought it up so I'm making you aware of this. Do as you will but I just don't think that point you made mattered at all.

 

1 hour ago, Beerzerker said:

To me it's the same comparison of saying you'd expect a model vehicle made in the 1990's to fail before one made in the 2000's AT THIS TIME, not that one is really any better than the other in terms of expected failure rates or for how long they'll go before a failure occurs.

Today right now I am wanting to buy storage device that is reliable to store data. Explain to me how this point is applicable.

 

If you are trying to argue that not enough SSDs have existed to get reliability data with statistical confidence then you are simply wrong, we do have enough data. It's been more than long enough.

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe read the article instead of making assumptions?

Anything below 100 sales were ignored.

If some particular SKU had below 200 in sales they marked it in italics, for example WD Purple and the Seagate Enterprise NAS HDD 6TB.

No brand with less than 500 sales were included in the overall reliability score.

 

I wouldn't say a sample size of over 5000 SSDs and over 5000 HDDs is "a bad sample size" (and that's based on minimums to qualify for the lists). I mean, what more can you expect? 

I closed my window and lost what I wrote, so shorter version.

 

It's 500 per brand, so it would be 3000 and 2000 sample min.  (And no, it's not based on minimums to qualify for the list, it's based on minimums to qualify for the model list not the brand list).  You can tell that by seeing HGST has a 0.82 failure rate but they only listed 2 drives @ 0.22% and 0.00%...so nope, they don't have a minimum to qualify

 

You are just basing on the numbers (and not the statistics) to assume it's a good enough of a sample size.  The simple fact is, they variation between each period was 94% average (on the brands, with the lowest being 9% and highest being 363%).  The instant you have data 50% of the brands showing a 40% delta period over period you know that either things are changing drastically or your sample size isn't good enough to draw a conclusion like you were making that it's 600% higher.

 

Oh, and for the hard drive section it had like a 25% average variability.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I could have chosen different brands and it would have changed the scales a bit, but I picked those brands for a reason other than "let's cherry pick". I picked the brands that made the most sense to compare, and even if I had picked different brands the conclusion would have been more or less the same anyway. The worst SSD brand from that report had a failure rate of 0,44%. The best HDD brand (HGST) had a failure rate of 0,82. That's almost twice as many returns within the first year. Twice as likely to be dead within a year. And remember, that's comparing bottom of the barrel SSDs vs possibly enterprise grade HDDs.

You are still overlooking the major component of the argument though.  That saying things like twice as likely doesn't really make a difference when values are low enough to not really matter if it's a multiple off.

 

Let's go with 0.44 and 0.82 as a quick example [and make the very terrible assumption that failure rates are static]:

5 years - HDD 4% chance of breaking, SSD 2.2%

10 years - HDD 7.9%, SSD 4.3%

So at 10 years if I had 20 harddrives in my house I would expect to replace ~2 of them, vs an SSD I'd expect to replace ~1 of them.  It's not a realistic scenario but it highlights why the initial size matters and simply trying to use the statistic that it's twice as likely has absolutely zero meaning unless you compare it to.

 

There is also the general point that I can operate using a "broken" HDD for quite some time (back in my strapped for cash university days, I operated with a pretty faulty harddrive for close to a month as I didn't have the resources to replace it and when it finally broke I still could get stuff off of it.  Not 100% important stuff but still nice to have stuff),  So I still 100% stand by what I said, the ability to tell when a HDD is dying is a positive when it comes a HDD (and not something that is hand waived off)

[jagdtigger]

On 2/1/2023 at 12:59 AM, leadeater said:

I would recommend Seagate over this WD option because:

Im turning ppl away from seagate as much as i can, drives routinely failing right around warranty end is quite suspicious..... (and im talking about ironwolf drives, not the consumer ones)

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I

 

There is also the general point that I can operate using a "broken" HDD for quite some time (back in my strapped for cash university days, I operated with a pretty faulty harddrive for close to a month as I didn't have the resources to replace it and when it finally broke I still could get stuff off of it.  Not 100% important stuff but still nice to have stuff),  So I still 100% stand by what I said, the ability to tell when a HDD is dying is a positive when it comes a HDD (and not something that is hand waived off)

To answer your previous question, yes, everything I need is backed up to multiple drives. If I experience a sudden failure in my laptop’s SSD at this very moment, recovering would not be especially difficult. 
 

I use a combination of SSDs and HDDs. However, even with the supposed advantage of HDDs being able to limp along, I would never advise anyone use a HDD for a boot drive in this day and age. The speed advantage of even inexpensive SSDs vastly outweighs this minimal drawback, when said drawback is easily obviated by backups, or even a stupid-simple RAID 1 array if you want real-time protection(which is similarly beneficial to HDDs as well). 
 

As told by my college professors, data does not exist unless it exists on three separate medium, preferably with one remote. The ability for HDDs to limp along does zero to change that. This is why I do not place any value in this particular trait.

 

HDDs have other advantages that I’d consider using them for, such as being more robust for cold storage, and superior density with decent sequential reads, so I don’t write them off fully. Bulk, readily accessible storage, they still can’t be beat. For a boot drive, absolutely not. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Im turning ppl away from seagate as much as i can, drives routinely failing right around warranty end is quite suspicious..... (and im talking about ironwolf drives, not the consumer ones)

I really only use the enterprise ones and haven't had problems like that. Other than ages ago with the Constellation ES.2 3TB but like seemed every 3TB HDD back then had failure problems.

[jagdtigger]

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I really only use the enterprise ones and haven't had problems like that. Other than ages ago with the Constellation ES.2 3TB but like seemed every 3TB HDD back then had failure problems.

So far had 4 ironwolf crap out right around the 3 year mark (one barely within warranty, the rest a few months apart). Meanwhile during this time i had a single wd red fail after ~6 years of power on time.....

[Mihle]

14 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Im turning ppl away from seagate as much as i can, drives routinely failing right around warranty end is quite suspicious..... (and im talking about ironwolf drives, not the consumer ones)

 

12 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

So far had 4 ironwolf crap out right around the 3 year mark (one barely within warranty, the rest a few months apart). Meanwhile during this time i had a single wd red fail after ~6 years of power on time.....

 

I have two Ironwolf 8TB that is 3 years and 8 months and none of them have any signs of failing at all. (On 24/7)

 

If all the drives were the same model, or even the same production run, that is more likely to be the fault than them just being Seagate. All brands have bad batches now and then, or some models that are worse than others.

[Beerzerker]

On 2/2/2023 at 3:07 AM, leadeater said:

~"Snip"~

Sorry it's taken so long to reply but an ironyous thing happened earlier (Yesterday evening) that stopped me dead in my tracks without warning.

I had yet ANOTHER SSD failure, (Corsair Force LS SATA 3 drive - 60GB) so I had to reinstall the OS on a different drive and currently recovering, getting all that set up again.
What I had on it is irretrieveably gone so that's that for anything I had on it. 
Luckily I didn't have anything irreplaceable/critical on it to worry about.

Since we're going round in circles here I'll make it simple to know and understand what I'm thinking and also admit part of all that was my poor explanation of my viewpoint(s).

First I'll quote myself from an earlier post here:
"I've had more SSD's die on me in a single year (4) than I've ever had any HDD's die off period, and that's from about 20 years of use across the board with all of them.

Of those SDD's, three were less than 6 months old from being new out of the box so don't be suprised about my thoughts on it. 
They died as said, no warning or anything - Just dead and that was it, whatever was on them was still there with no way to retrieve any of it".

And, as of right now I can now add another to the number of SSD's that's failed here except this one did go for awhile - Much longer than the others before it.

With this kind of experience between the two drive types over the years, no one will convince me an SSD, as they are now are more reliable - Period.

I can only go with what I've experienced on this and that's it.
If they are failing, they are failing and as said I'm now recovering from another one nibbling the dust.

If you've had better luck with SSD's that's great for your part of it (Good on you) but not the case here.
 

[Mihle]

6 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

Sorry it's taken so long to reply but an ironyous thing happened earlier (Yesterday evening) that stopped me dead in my tracks without warning.

I had yet ANOTHER SSD failure, (Corsair Force LS SATA 3 drive - 60GB) so I had to reinstall the OS on a different drive and currently recovering, getting all that set up again.
What I had on it is irretrieveably gone so that's that for anything I had on it. 
Luckily I didn't have anything irreplaceable/critical on it to worry about.

 

Since we're going round in circles here I'll make it simple to know and understand what I'm thinking and also admit part of all that was my poor explanation of my viewpoint(s).

First I'll quote myself from an earlier post here:
"I've had more SSD's die on me in a single year (4) than I've ever had any HDD's die off period, and that's from about 20 years of use across the board with all of them.

Of those SDD's, three were less than 6 months old from being new out of the box so don't be suprised about my thoughts on it. 
They died as said, no warning or anything - Just dead and that was it, whatever was on them was still there with no way to retrieve any of it".

And, as of right now I can now add another to the number of SSD's that's failed here except this one did go for awhile - Much longer than the others before it.

With this kind of experience between the two drive types over the years, no one will convince me an SSD, as they are now are more reliable - Period.

I can only go with what I've experienced on this and that's it.
If they are failing, they are failing and as said I'm now recovering from another one nibbling the dust.

If you've had better luck with SSD's that's great for your part of it (Good on you) but not the case here.
 

You are definitely far from objective and not scientific at all, but continue to believe what you believe if you want to

 

also, 60GB? That sounds like an old SSD....

Curious, was the other dead SSDs the same model of SSD, and/or used in the exact same way? 

[Beerzerker]

16 minutes ago, Mihle said:

You are definitely far from objective and not scientific at all, but continue to believe what you believe if you want to

There is no science required to prove or even theorize anything here - If it's dead, It's dead.... That's it.
I'm way beyond theory concept with all the testing I've done to try and see if it was a gliched OS/boot sector or some other odd crap, which it isn't.
The system "Sees" the drive in the boot menu/POST screen/BIOS and that's about it.
No access to it or anything else like it's frozen - Probrably a dead SSD controller in play here.

Even attempting to do a total erasure of it results in Jack going over the hill and not after Jill.....
More like sliding down, on his crown and making a mess of his face.

16 minutes ago, Mihle said:

also, 60GB? That sounds like an old SSD....

Curious, was the other dead SSDs the same model of SSD, and/or used in the exact same way? 

It was an older one I've had for some years now so with this one I can't "Complain" (Yet I can ) about it but the others were all older models too (Mushkin Chronos 60GB drives), dying as said from box to grave.
I had bought 4 total all at the same time and three of them died.
The last one out of these, believe it or not still works fine to this day but I don't use it as a daily, it's used for other "Things" that's not daily dependent - Unlike the one that just snuffed it, having my daily's OS on it.

[Kisai]

13 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

So far had 4 ironwolf crap out right around the 3 year mark (one barely within warranty, the rest a few months apart). Meanwhile during this time i had a single wd red fail after ~6 years of power on time.....

Were they all the same size? From the same store? They might be from the same manufacturing line/day.

 

At any rate, my experience has been that seagate hasn't been better than western digital since the acquisition of Quantum. Quantum made good drives, Seagate itself, never did. That said, Western Digital drives have always been the noisiest damn drives.

 

Like the 16 and 18TB Red Pro's I bought, both make some seriously loud random-access noises. I had to go with the Red Pro's because WD doesn't make any black drives over 10TB. So the 16 and 18 replaced a 2TB and a 6TB.

 

Anyhow, I think it's only a matter of time before we just get cheap 20TB M2 drives QLC that are designed for bulk storage. What would improve the overall situation is actually having the wear leveling work with the file system to actually "nerf" capacity as the drive wears out and has to wear-level from existing capacity.

[LAwLz]

And now we have reached the point where people just say "this is what I experienced, so therefore it is the truth", like all HDD threads...

There is something about storage discussions that makes people lose all sense of objectivity and go 100% on anecdotal evidence. 

[Beerzerker]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

And now we have reached the point where people just say "this is what I experienced, so therefore it is the truth", like all HDD threads...

There is something about storage discussions that makes people lose all sense of objectivity and go 100% on anecdotal evidence. 

If you experienced (lived) it, it's the truth or you're making yourself out to be a liar... To yourself no less if you deny it. 
Or maybe when you woke up this morning that never happened yet there you are, wide eyed and fully awake.

EDIT:
In my case with the three that retired themselves early, I see it as I've heard it said before:
Once: It's just something that happened
Twice: It's a coincidence
Thrice: It's a pattern.
 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Were they all the same size? From the same store? They might be from the same manufacturing line/day.

 

At any rate, my experience has been that seagate hasn't been better than western digital since the acquisition of Quantum. Quantum made good drives, Seagate itself, never did. That said, Western Digital drives have always been the noisiest damn drives.

 

Like the 16 and 18TB Red Pro's I bought, both make some seriously loud random-access noises. I had to go with the Red Pro's because WD doesn't make any black drives over 10TB. So the 16 and 18 replaced a 2TB and a 6TB.

 

Anyhow, I think it's only a matter of time before we just get cheap 20TB M2 drives QLC that are designed for bulk storage. What would improve the overall situation is actually having the wear leveling work with the file system to actually "nerf" capacity as the drive wears out and has to wear-level from existing capacity.

Ever been around an old Quantum Fireball?
It's worse or at least as bad as anything out there ever was.

[suicidalfranco]

cool, hope it trickles down to consumer product and gives me a cheap 5TB drive

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Mihle said:

also, 60GB? That sounds like an old SSD....

Curious, was the other dead SSDs the same model of SSD, and/or used in the exact same way? 

It's an SSD from the 2013's, not necessarily purchased then but market release date. Can't remember how good it is but being 60GB it wasn't going to last long sadly.

 

Thing about HDDs is that they have been around for so long that they have been optimized over and over again and reach a very strong point of maturity, I personally don't believe SSDs are even half as close. I do think SSD reliability will bounce back, hopefully in the next few years, but I really do believe we are in a reliability and quality dip right now with them.

 

Really good ones still exist so reliable options are there to choose from so it's not doom and gloom or anything like that but I'm perfectly happy running all my 840 and 850 Pros for now. I doubt they are going to die in the next 10 years. My next PC build will have an M.2 though, my SSDs aren't even in my gaming PC, I just use an iSCSI mount.

[Beerzerker]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's an SSD from the 2013's, not necessarily purchased then but market release date. Can't remember how good it is but being 60GB it wasn't going to last long sadly.

Got these (Corsairs) brandnew in 2019 CHEAP (From the egg) and that's why I got them in the first place for the sum of $20 U.S. each shipped - I coudn't pass on them when they appeared.
The Mushkins were all bought new in 2013-2014 for at least twice that amount each.
I got these because I don't have a requirement for larger drives, this is just a simple daily machine for web browsing and nothing else.

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Thing about HDDs is that they have been around for so long that they have been optimized over and over again and reach a very strong point of maturity, I personally don't believe SSDs are even half as close. I do think SSD reliability will bounce back, hopefully in the next few years, but I really do believe we are in a reliability and quality dip right now with them.

 

Really good ones still exist so reliable options are there to choose from so it's not doom and gloom or anything like that but I'm perfectly happy running all my 840 and 850 Pros for now. I doubt they are going to die in the next 10 years. My next PC build will have an M.2 though, my SSDs aren't even in my gaming PC, I just use an iSCSI mount.

I also hope you don't have issues like I've had, with each iteration (Gen) of drives that appears the tech does get better at least.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Beerzerker said:

 

Ever been around an old Quantum Fireball?
It's worse or at least as bad as anything out there ever was.

The quantum drives were all solid for me until one got nuked by a lighting strike. Even then, 99% of the data was retrieved.

 

Meanwhile seagate drives of the same vintage often just died at random.

 

Western digital has always been a mixed bag, but they've always been extremely loud. Like you could literately tell what hard drive a computer had from 10'ft away because the WD have the trademark heavy head actuation sound.

 

So this story is funny to me, because I imagine the drives must sound even noisier.

[Beerzerker]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The quantum drives were all solid for me until one got nuked by a lighting strike. Even then, 99% of the data was retrieved.

 

Meanwhile seagate drives of the same vintage often just died at random.

 

Western digital has always been a mixed bag, but they've always been extremely loud. Like you could literately tell what hard drive a computer had from 10'ft away because the WD have the trademark heavy head actuation sound.

 

So this story is funny to me, because I imagine the drives must sound even noisier.

Oh yeah - Fireballs were as reliable as it gets but slow and noisy to the point it sounded like something grinding in the case at times.
You didn't have to worry about hooking up the HDD activity LED with those - You knew.

WD's weren't exactly quiet either but were faster at least.

[Mihle]

2 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

There is no science required to prove or even theorize anything here - If it's dead, It's dead.... That's it.
I'm way beyond theory concept with all the testing I've done to try and see if it was a gliched OS/boot sector or some other odd crap, which it isn't.
The system "Sees" the drive in the boot menu/POST screen/BIOS and that's about it.
No access to it or anything else like it's frozen - Probrably a dead SSD controller in play here.

Even attempting to do a total erasure of it results in Jack going over the hill and not after Jill.....
More like sliding down, on his crown and making a mess of his face.

It was an older one I've had for some years now so with this one I can't "Complain" (Yet I can ) about it but the others were all older models too (Mushkin Chronos 60GB drives), dying as said from box to grave.
I had bought 4 total all at the same time and three of them died.
The last one out of these, believe it or not still works fine to this day but I don't use it as a daily, it's used for other "Things" that's not daily dependent - Unlike the one that just snuffed it, having my daily's OS on it.

That's not what I ment at all. What I ment is that, even tho you feel you have had bad experiences with SSDs but nothing bad with HDDs, doesn't mean SSDs is in general actually less reliable than HDDs even tho that's the experience you have. It's only your experience, and is a small sample size.

 

And yeah, if they all were the same model of SDDs, especially if it's the same batches, it's more likely to die at the same time, be that a short time or long time. (Compared to if they were different)

[Beerzerker]

1 minute ago, Mihle said:

That's not what I ment at all. What I ment is that, even tho you feel you have had bad experiences with SSDs but nothing bad with HDDs, doesn't mean SSDs is in general actually less reliable than HDDs even tho that's the experience you have. It's only your experience, and is a small sample size.

I can see your point and agree, but at the same time it's like when you buy a certain "Something" (Wahtever it is) and turns out it's crap - You get bit because of it and you avoid it or anything like it from that point onward.
That's basically all of us and I can't blame anyone with a bad experience about avoiding such.

1 minute ago, Mihle said:

And yeah, if they all were the same model of SDDs, especially if it's the same batches, it's more likely to die at the same time, be that a short time or long time. (Compared to if they were different)

Also agree - It could be the Mushkin drives were of a bad batch but at the same time I had to deal and lost what I did in terms of data and money spent.
For anything critical I can't afford to lose I'm sticking with HDD's - For just regular/daily use an SSD is OK.

[Mihle]

21 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

I can see your point and agree, but at the same time it's like when you buy a certain "Something" (Wahtever it is) and turns out it's crap - You get bit because of it and you avoid it or anything like it from that point onward.
That's basically all of us and I can't blame anyone with a bad experience about avoiding such.

Also agree - It could be the Mushkin drives were of a bad batch but at the same time I had to deal and lost what I did in terms of data and money spent.
For anything critical I can't afford to lose I'm sticking with HDD's - For just regular/daily use an SSD is OK.

Just add on info, I have yet to have any SSD or HDD die on me or my brother. at least the last 10 years(can't remember before then) it doesn't mean I treat data like they never will

[Zodiark1593]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's an SSD from the 2013's, not necessarily purchased then but market release date. Can't remember how good it is but being 60GB it wasn't going to last long sadly.

 

Thing about HDDs is that they have been around for so long that they have been optimized over and over again and reach a very strong point of maturity, I personally don't believe SSDs are even half as close. I do think SSD reliability will bounce back, hopefully in the next few years, but I really do believe we are in a reliability and quality dip right now with them.

 

Really good ones still exist so reliable options are there to choose from so it's not doom and gloom or anything like that but I'm perfectly happy running all my 840 and 850 Pros for now. I doubt they are going to die in the next 10 years. My next PC build will have an M.2 though, my SSDs aren't even in my gaming PC, I just use an iSCSI mount.

I personally haven't had many drives fail over the span of 14 years. A single HDD failure, a couple SD cards, and a flash drive. No SSDs yet. Thankfully, I've had pretty good luck, though I also maintain backups of stuff I don't want to lose. I actually still have the Toshiba 2.5" HDD from my first laptop (2008) still in use in my desktop, when I just wanted a scratchpad drive. It's not even fastened anywhere, it's kind of just hanging around. SMART has shown a Caution status for about 7 years now (Power On hours). I've got tons of external drives around too. Will probably build a proper server at some point, just as soon as I build a new desktop (so as to reuse my old one for server duty). Which given the state of the GPU market, and the fact that I just don't play many games anymore, won't be for a long time.

[da na]

On 2/1/2023 at 8:07 AM, Doobeedoo said:

Yeah also Seagate Cheetah and I think there were even 20K RPM drives. Imagine that with multi actuator for each plate and being hybrid SSHDD too hah.

I don't think 20K made it to production. 15K is the fastest you can buy. I own several for my servers and workstations, a RAID array I have of four 15K 2.5" drives gets a solid 850mbps read/write and doesn't wear out like an SSD would. (Not 2.5" like a laptop, 15mm 2.5" used in servers)

[Doobeedoo]

24 minutes ago, Mel0n. said:

I don't think 20K made it to production. 15K is the fastest you can buy. I own several for my servers and workstations, a RAID array I have of four 15K 2.5" drives gets a solid 850mbps read/write and doesn't wear out like an SSD would. (Not 2.5" like a laptop, 15mm 2.5" used in servers)

Yeah 15K or even 10K ones are definitely more faster than 7200RPM standard drives, just even in random read. Also today there are definitely enterprise SSDs that will last longer and are far more resilient too.